Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 335 (PNJ)

Paramjit Singh v. State Of U. T. , Chandigarh

2000-03-24

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. On the statement of Manjit Kaur, FIR No 223 dated 21.12.1998 has been registered under sections 498- A/406/420/494/34 IPC at Police Station West, Sector 11, Chandigarh wherein the following allegations are found :- 2. The Complainant-Manjit Kaur married Paramjit Singh (Petitioner) on 13.9.93. After some time, complainants husband and mother-in-law harassed her asking her to bring money. Her husband and his brother-in-law Talwinder Singh left her forcibly with her parents twice, at Chandigarh. After persuation she was left in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, they started harassing the complainant more and beating her. When petitioner-Paramjit Singh started construction at Patiala in 1997, petitioner and his mother-Amarjit Kaur asked the complainant to bring Rs. 1.00 lac and threatened that if she did not bring, she will be sent out of the house, and Paramjit Singh will be married again. When the father of the complainant expressed inability, they started rebuking and abusing her. After some time, Paramjit Singh started living with his children (through his earlier wife) at Patiala. On 27.7.98, complainants mother-in-law and father-in-law went abroad leaving complainant alone in the village house, which was not safe, and therefore, the complainant informed her father. On 2.8.98, her father came and was informed by the complainant that Paramjit Singh had married again. Complainants father requested Paramjit Singh either to live in the village or to take her to Patiala, but the petitioner refused to do so. The complainants father took her to Chandigarh, but all the jewellery and dowry articles are with Paramjit Singh. The complainant and her father went to Patiala and saw Gurmit Kaur with whom Paramjit Singh had solemnised marriage. Paramjit Singh got himself sterilized after the birth of the third child through his first wife, but this was not disclosed to the complainant. 3. The petitioners request for bail in anticipation of arrest was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr. P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that originally when the FIR was lodged on 21.12.98, it was lodged only under Section 498-A and 34 IPC, but in February, 1999, Section 406 IPC was added to the same. P.C. for bail in anticipation of arrest. 4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that originally when the FIR was lodged on 21.12.98, it was lodged only under Section 498-A and 34 IPC, but in February, 1999, Section 406 IPC was added to the same. He also contends that in March, 1999, Sections 420 and 494 IPC were added. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the allegations regarding cruelty are vague, that the dowry articles had already been returned, and that Section 494 IPC is a bailable offence. He also contends that Gurmit Kaur had not married the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that Gurmit Kaur herself had lodged a FIR in Police Station Sangeria (Rajasthan) under Sections 420, 406, 495, 496, 497 etc. IPC against the petitioner. He also contends that though certain recoveries were made on 18.2.99, the gold ornaments worth Rs. 1.00 lac has not been recovered so far. The learned counsel for the State also contends that there are allegations in the FIR regarding the alleged demand for dowry and cruelty. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that contracting further marriage itself is an act of cruelty, he also contends that the petitioner had obtained signatures from Gurmit Kaur in blank paper as is evident from affidavit - Annexure R-7. He also contends that while the complainant was issueless and a divorcee, the petitioner was also a divorcee, but had three children, but, the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had sterilized himself already. The learned counsel for the complainant also contends that there are allegations regarding the demand of dowry also. 6. The learned cousnel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the complainant ill-treated his children and parents, and therefore, he took his children to Patiala, while his parents went abroad. He also contends that he had sterilized himself, and this was informed before marriage to the complainant and her parents. He contends that both the petitioner and the complainant were divorcees. He further contends that except the allegations that he allegedly demanded Rs. 1.00 lac for the construction of the house, the other allegations regarding cruelty are also vague. He also contends that he had sterilized himself, and this was informed before marriage to the complainant and her parents. He contends that both the petitioner and the complainant were divorcees. He further contends that except the allegations that he allegedly demanded Rs. 1.00 lac for the construction of the house, the other allegations regarding cruelty are also vague. The petitioner contends that though it is stated that some dowry articles have to be recovered, it has to be borne in mind that marriage was performed in the year 1993. 7. The learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner has joined investigation. Further, there is dispute as to whether the dowry articles are with the petitioner or not. Therefore, I am of the view that bail need not be rejected to the petitioner on the ground that dowry articles have to be recovered. It is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner is manipulating evidence inasmuch as he has got the affidavit of Gurmit Kaur to show that he had not married her. The complainants has also produced the affidavits of Gurmit Kaur and others. Simply because, the affidavits are filed by either side, it does not mean that one or the other is trying to manipulate or create evidence. Further, the offence under Section 494 IPC is a bailable one. 8. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Resultantly, petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioner shall abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. Petition allowed.